Der USA Bären-Thread
Als mit meiner Prognose vor 2 Stunden lag ich ja mal so was von daneben. Das Kaninchen sollte sich halt nicht schlauer dünken als die olle Giftschlange.
In diesem Sinne, wenn nichts mehr passiert ein schönes Wochenende an die Runde.
"Heute ist nicht alle Tage, ich komm wieder, keine Frage."
paulchen_tod.jpg
cfnai1967.png (verkleinert auf 84%)
www.chartsrus.com
auf die ich kürzlich schon hin gewiesen hatte. Ich kann nur jedem empfehlen, auf dieser Seite mal in die Rubrik US-MARKETS zu gehen und dort die diversen SP500-Links anzuklicken.
bondyield1960-2000.gif (verkleinert auf 63%)
Sachsen LB / Stellungnahme
Veröffentlichung einer Ad-hoc-Mitteilung nach § 15 WpHG, übermittelt durch
die DGAP - ein Unternehmen der EquityStory AG.
Für den Inhalt der Mitteilung ist der Emittent verantwortlich.
--------------------------------------------------
Die anhaltende Marktstörung beim Absatz von Asset Backed Commercial Papers
hat zu Zweifeln hinsichtlich der Sicherstellung der Refinanzierung des von
der Sachsen LB Europe plc betreuten Conduits Ormond Quay mit einem Volumen
von 17,3 Mrd. € geführt. Die Sachsen LB Europe plc ist eine 100-prozentige
Tochter der Sachsen LB. Im Ergebnis wurde die Bonität der Sachsen LB in
Frage gestellt.
Ein Pool der Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe hat eine Kreditlinie in Höhe von 17,3.
Mrd. € zur Verfügung gestellt und so die Liquidität des Conduits
gesichert. Alle Repo-Verpflichtungen und emittierten Commercial Paper
werden somit bei Fälligkeit erfüllt bzw. eingelöst werden.
Der Freistaat Sachsen hat bestätigt, dass für die sich aus der Ormond
Quay-Struktur ergebenden Verpflichtungen der Sachsen LB-Gruppe die Haftung
des Gewährträgers nach den mit der EU-Kommission vereinbarten
Grandfathering-Regelungen greift, so dass für die Kredit gebenden Banken
kein Wertminderungsrisiko besteht.
Die Sachsen LB kann ihre Finanzierungsverpflichtungen, die sich aus den
übrigen von ihr betreuten Conduits (Georges Quay, Sachsen Funding) ergeben,
mit den ihr zur Verfügung stehenden Refinanzierungsmitteln jederzeit
erfüllen.
Die Bonität der Sachsen LB ist damit gegeben. Die Umstellung der
Refinanzierung der Ormond Quay-Struktur wird das Jahresergebnis der Sachsen
LB belasten.
Kontakt:
Dr. Frank Steinmeyer
Sachsen LB
Landesbank Sachsen Girozentrale
Humboldtstrasse 25
D-04105 Leipzig
Tel. + 49 341 9791120
Fax. + 49 341 9791109
kommunikation@sachsenlb.de
DGAP 17.08.2007
--------------------------------------------------
Sprache: Deutsch
Emittent: Sachsen LB
Humboldtstraße 25
04105 Leipzig
Deutschland
Telefon: + 49 341 9791190
Fax: + 49 341 9791199
E-mail: compliance@sachsenlb.de
Internet: www.sachsenlb.de
ISIN: -
WKN: -
Indizes:
Börsen: Geregelter Markt in Frankfurt (General Standard); Freiverkehr
in Hamburg, Stuttgart
Ende der Mitteilung DGAP News-Service
--------------------------------------------------
Sachsen-LB, Sparkasse Köln-Bonn, IKB, ...
so langsam kommt einiges ans Tageslicht. Mal sehen, was noch alles unter diversen Decken auf Aufdeckung wartet.
Der Staat haftet ja im Zweifel.
Hoffentlich weiß der Staat was mit den Zweifeln anzufangen.
Also ich zweifel so langsam an einigem, und da ist der derzeizige Dow-/Dax-Stand noch das Geringste.
Gruß TDM850
„FED war auf einen Short-Squeeze aus“
Fed-Chef Bernanke wird er weich
17. August 2007
Mit deutlichen Kursgewinnen reagieren die internationalen Börsen auf eine überraschende Diskontsatzsenkung in den Vereinigten Staaten. Diese Entwicklung dürfte jedoch eher auf einen so genannten „Short-Squeeze“ zurückzuführen sein, als auf die von noch so vielen positiv bewerteten Konjunkturdaten.
Offensichtlich hatte es die Zentralbank bei ihrer Aktion sogar darauf angelegt, die Marktteilnehmer auf dem falschen Fuß zu erwischen und sie dazu zu zwingen, Aktien zurück zu kaufen, die sie zuvor in Wette auf weiter fallende Kurse ausgeliehen und am Markt verkauft hatten. Damit zumindest hatten sie kurzfristig Erfolg. Denn der die Börsianer weltweit reagierten positiv auf die Entscheidung und katapultierten die Kurse am Freitag nach oben.
Nun also doch: Die Subprime-Krise schlägt durch
Allerdings ist der Handel sehr volatil Es wird sich erst noch zeigen müssen, wie nachhaltig die Entwicklung sein wird. Denn solche Aktionen dürften das Vertrauen kritischer Marktteilnehmer in die Politik der Zentralbank genau so wenig steigern wie das Eingeständnis, die so genannte Subprime-Krise könnte die konjunkturelle Entwicklung in den Vereinigten Staaten doch beeinträchtigen.
Bisher hatten das weder die Zentralbanker noch die Börsenbullen wahrhaben wollen. Sie gingen sowohl von robustem Wirtschaftswachstum als auch von inflationären Gefahren aus. „Nach Einschätzung von Bernanke und seinen Kollegen haben die Verwerfungen an den Börsen und Kapitalmärkten inzwischen die Finanzierungsbedingungen der Unternehmen so sehr beeinträchtigt, dass sich die Gefahren für den Konjunkturaufschwung in Amerika deutlich erhöht haben“, heißt es nun plötzlich. Welche Überraschung!
Fakt ist jedoch, dass sich die amerikanischen Wirtschaft in den vergangenen Jahren immer mehr von einer Produktions- zu einer Dienstleistungsgesellschaft wandelte. Daten zeigen, dass zuletzt gerade noch zehn Prozent des Bruttoinlandsproduktes vom produzierenden Sektor kamen. Das restliche „Wachstum“ kam vom Dienstleistungsbereich, als da wären Finanzdienste, Militär, Sicherheitsapparat und vor allem auch der Hege und Pflege des scheinbar so robusten amerikanischen Konsumenten.
Die „FED war offensichtlich am Freitag auf einen Short-Squeeze aus“
Dieser nutzte in den vergangenen Jahren scheinbar so vorteilhaften Finanzierungsbedingungen für den bedingungslosen Konsum und bis zuletzt auch für den Kauf von Häusern. „Dabei konnten sie sich diese vielfach gar nicht leisten,“ Marktteilnehmer wie Fondsmanager Axel Merk, von Merk Investments in Kalifornien. Der Merk Hard Currency Fund, ein Anlagevehikel, das konsequent auf kurzfristige und sichere Zinspapiere setzt, verbuchte nach seinen Angaben in den vergangenen Monaten massive Mittelzuflüsse. Sie kamen von Anlegern, die sich im Rahmen der gegenwärtigen Kreditkrise auf der Suche nach sicheren Anlagemöglichkeiten befinden.
Er verweist auf die jüngsten Äußerungen von Wal-Mart und anderen Unternehmen die zeigten, dass der amerikanische Konsument inzwischen finanziell mit dem Rücken zur Wand stehe und künftig zurückstecken müsse. Da jedoch in der Vergangenheit ein großer Teil der amerikanischen und indirekt auch der globalen Konjunktur vom amerikanischen Konsum abhing, sei das Überspringen der gegenwärtigen Kreditkrise auf die Realwirtschaft unvermeidlich. Das strukturelle Problem lasse sich mit kurzfristigen „Geldspitzen“ nicht beheben. Die „FED war offensichtlich am Freitag auf einen Short-Squeeze aus“, erklärte er.
Insgesamt würde er sich als Anleger gegenwärtig defensiv positionieren. Denn die Volatilität werde noch eine Weile andauern. In diesem Sinne mögen die kurzfristigen Kursgewinne kurzsichtige Börsenhändler befriedigen. Längerfristig orientierte Anleger dagegen dürften skeptisch bleiben. Denn mit Geldspritzen lassen sich Strukturprobleme nicht beheben. Und das Kernproblem ist die „Erschöpfung“ des amerikanischen Konsumenten.
ich hab nochmal drüber nachgedacht und bin zur überzeugung gekommen, daß das Signal der FED eine wesentliche Botschaft enthält:
Spekuliere nicht auf fallende Kurse
-----------------------------------
Das Besondere an der Entscheidung ist ja, daß sie plötzlich, unerwartet überraschend kam. Bei Entscheidungen einer Zentralbank so ziemlich das letzte was man erwartet.
Es ist ein Schuss vor den Bug der Leerverikäufer, denn jeder muss nun damit rechnen, daß dies nochmal passiert. Jeder? Nein, nicht jeder, aber jeder Hedgefondmanager !
Denn genau die Hedgefonds sind überlicherweise die Kriegsgewinnler der fallenden Börse und die haben jetzt das Problem, daß sie den Zentralbanken offensichtlich nicht mehr trauen können. Damit werden die Wetten auf fallende Kurse riskant und nicht mehr so lukrativ.
Resümee:
Eine gute Entscheidung für den Markt
regards
Fred
Ich hab dazu einen eigenen Thread aufgemacht, in dem evtl. auch einige Betroffene ihre Erfahrungen austauschen können. (Ich selber hab ein Konto bei ETrade, aber es liegt brach, da ich nie was eingezahlt habe).
http://www.ariva.de/Wie_sicher_sind_US_Broker_t300138
foto~holzmast.jpg
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt3m4/wirtschaft/artikel/854/128642/
dürfte ein neuer rekord sein.
wie war das doch noch letzte woche mit "unwesentliche beträge" ??
so long
navigator
Optionen
| Boardmail an "NavigatorC" |
Wertpapier: S&P 500 |
http://www.ariva.de/Wie_sicher_sind_US_Broker_t300138#jump3507600
-----------------------------------------------
Chart von Countrywide (CFC):
big.gif (verkleinert auf 88%)
Why does Wall Street always get bailed out?
By Allan Sloan, Fortune senior editor-at-large
Wall Street loves to talk about letting financial markets weed out the weak. But when the Street itself gets in trouble, it sticks out its little tin cup, asking for help. And gets it.
The subprime-mortgage-market meltdown is a classic example of the way small fry get devoured, but the whales of Wall Street get rescued. Here's the deal: People with crummy credit who took out mortgages are being allowed to fail in record numbers. The mortgage companies that made those loans are being allowed to fail.
The Street itself? It's bailout city. Even before the Fed made a symbolic half-point cut in the discount rate, it and other central banks from Switzerland to Singapore were trying to rescue the Street by injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial markets and announcing they will put up more, if needed.
Hello? If you believe in markets - which I do - this rescue is especially galling, because Wall Street enabled this mess in the first place. How so? By happily sucking up hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of suspect mortgages from marginal U.S. borrowers-and begging mortgage makers to create more of them. The Street sliced and diced this financial toxic waste into a variety of esoteric securities, making a nice markup when it sold them and generating a continuing stream of profits when it made markets in them.
Somehow analysts at credit-rating agencies, looking at computerized scenarios rather than at the real world, decided that the bulk of the securities backed by these trashy loans could be rated triple-A.
It's really amazing: Most of the loans to substandard creditors borrowing 100% of the purchase price of homes they couldn't afford were rated the same as GE and the federal government. That makes no sense. But the money rolled in, and Wall Street-by which I mean the world's biggest and most important financial institutions-didn't care about the real world or ask any questions. It was too busy making money, and cashing bonus checks generated by subprime-mortgage profits.
But the world's central banks aren't letting the big guys fail. Think of it as the Escape of the Enablers. The reason this is happening, of course, is the same reason that the Fed orchestrated a bailout of the infamous Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund a decade ago-and about 20 years ago didn't close some of the nation's biggest banks, even though they were effectively insolvent because unrealized losses had wiped out their capital.
It's the "too big to fail" syndrome. In a world in which big players make incredibly large and complex deals with one another - that's what derivatives are - regulators don't dare let a big or important institution fail for fear that the collapse of one would lead to "cascading failures," and other institutions wouldn't be able to collect what the collapsed institution owed them.
The Fed's job, you see, isn't to protect you and me and our retirement portfolios, or even many of the nation's largest companies and biggest employers. The Fed's job is to protect the financial system. That's why it's trying to rescue the gigantic subprime enablers while letting borrowers and mortgage companies go under.
Your collapse or mine wouldn't bother Fed chairman Ben Bernanke or the world's other central bankers. But if, say, a big German institution loaded to the eyeballs with subprime securities croaked, Bernanke and his fellow central bankers would care a lot.
Sure, we know that Ben and the boys will always bail out the biggies. And none of us - I think, anyway - wants the world's financial system to implode. But I'd feel a lot better if the Street had to pay a serious price to its rescuers--say, having to fork over a big equity stake and pay a loan-shark interest rate. That way taxpayers, who are picking up the tab for the rescue, would get paid bigtime for taking on bigtime risk.
After all, that's the Wall Street way.
http://biz.yahoo.com/hftn/070817/..._sloan_enablers_fortune.html?.v=2
Okay, I know an orderly crash is an oxymoron.
But if the sheeple had panicked big time..well, there might have been a run on the banks.
As it was, we were seeing a run on the hedge funds.
But it could have spread in a big way.
The seed to this crisis has already been sown. And that seed is MASSIVE DEBT.
The problem right now appears to be not just outlandish amounts of credit. It is one of POOR CREDIT QUALITY.
The defaults will keep on coming. The foreclosures will continue.
And the Fed has shown it is in panic mode and will cut the Fed Discount Rate for banks and, in the immediate future, will cut the Fed Funds Rate.
That will be very bad for Uncle Buck, but it will tell everyone that economic conditions are getting progressively worse.
Thus, the markets will continue to decline, reflecting the grim economic fundamentals (record household debt, record negative savings rate, slowing economy, housing bubble implosion, credit crunch, sky high twin deficits, half of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, record underfunding of pensions, tiny manufacturing sector, crippled sectors in real estate, airlines and autos, the Iraq quagmire, weak currency, high price inflation for needs, etc.), but they will fall in a gradual fashion, rather than a sharp, panic-causing plunge that could potentially cause a financial collapse.
That's my feeling at this precise moment in time....
Zu der bevorstehenden Zinssenkung der FED ist man an entsprechender Stelle bereits sehr gut informiert, wie bei Blumbärch zu lesen ist
Goldman Says Fed to Cut Rates to 4.5 Percent in 2007 (Update2)
By Deborah Finestone
Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the Federal Reserve will cut the overnight target interest rate to 4.5 percent from 5.25 percent this year, citing ``sharp tightening in financial conditions'' and expectations the economy will slow.
The Fed will reduce the rate by at least 0.25 point on or before policy makers meet on Sept. 18, economists led by Jan Hatzius and Ed McKelvey in New York forecast in a note today before the central bank reduced its discount rate.
The Fed will cut another 50 basis points after that, possible at the next two meetings in October and December, McKelvey said in an interview. The Fed today cut the rate at which it makes direct loans to banks by 0.5 percentage point to 5.75 percent. It's the first reduction in borrowing costs between scheduled meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee since 2001 and Ben S. Bernanke's first as Fed chairman.
Daiwa Securities America Inc. and JPMorgan Securities Inc., also now expect the Fed to reduce rates twice starting in September, dropping calls for rates to remain steady all year. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. now says borrowing costs will be cut twice to 4.75 percent by year-end. Lehman had predicted the Fed wouldn't lower rates. UBS Securities LLC says the Fed to cut twice starting in September, instead of once in October.
Subprime Turmoil
Turmoil in credit markets sparked by losses on subprime mortgages has spurred investors to flee riskier assets ranging from emerging-market debt to equities.
Yields on two-year Treasury notes, traditionally a safe haven for investors, dipped below 4 percent to their lowest compared with the Fed's target since 2001.
Investors demanded the highest risk premium since November 2005 to hold emerging-market sovereign bonds, according to JPMorgan's EMBI Plus index. In addition, global stocks have lost $4.2 trillion in the past month. That should keep consumer spending subdued, the firm said.
``We still expect the credit restraint and the housing downturn to push the unemployment rate up by an amount that has generally coincided with monetary easing in the past,'' according to the research note.
Until June, Goldman had expected the Fed to cut rates 75 basis points this year. They changed the forecast in June saying the Fed would hold rates at 5.25 percent through year-end amid a resilient labor market and manufacturing strength.
The firm is maintaining its forecast that gross domestic product will slow to a 2 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter and first quarter of 2008.
ratesfed.gif (verkleinert auf 63%)
Ben and the boys will always bail out the biggies
Den könnte man sich mal in sein Börsen-Poesiealbum schreiben...
Hide now, buy later, wealth managers tell clients
Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:19PM EDT
By Douwe Miedema, European Wealth Management Correspondent
ZURICH, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Wealth managers are urging millionaire clients to sell shares and build up cash until stock markets settle and low prices provide new buying opportunities.
The market rout has unnerved some private investors, bankers said on Friday, even though the unfolding crisis seems largely contained to financial markets for now and looks unlikely to impact the still healthy broader economy.
"There are always some clients that get nervous, but they are the exception. If you want to make money in equities in the long run, you have to accept some volatility," said Magne Orgland, a partner at Swiss bank Wegelin & Co.
Wegelin has reduced equity exposure in managed portfolios twice within a time-span of two weeks, cutting allocation in a balanced portfolio to 40 percent from 50 percent on July 27, and down again to 30 percent last week.
Rich clients -- often defined as anyone having $1 million or more in free investable assets -- are a formidable force on financial markets, holding an estimated $37 trillion in assets worldwide, a number that is rapidly growing.
Stock markets leapt on Friday after the U.S. Federal Reserve unexpectedly cut its discount rate, saying deteriorating financial conditions were a downside risk to growth.
However, most of this year's gains on equity markets have evaporated, as investors panicked because of fears that havoc in the credit markets in the wake of the U.S. subprime crisis could turn into a global liquidity crunch.
"The message to our clients is: 'let's stay calm until we're having some of the heavy fog cleared up and have some visibility on the impact of this crisis," said Laurence Stoppelman, an investment counsellor at Citi Private Bank (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
"We don't want to be caught up in panic selling," he said, adding that the private bank had not told clients to reduce their equity exposure.
CASH IS KING
Equity markets would continue to be under pressure for up to three months, Credit Suisse said, and it too had cut equity exposure and put the money into cash, to wait until the storm was over and clients could pick up cheap deals.
"We want to be on the sidelines in order to act at the right moment. We're seeing a lot of value, but at the moment, the equity markets just aren't behaving rationally," said Adrian Zuercher, an equity strategist at Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research).
Banks had been particularly hard-hit by the sell-off, Zuercher said, and the European banking sector was now trading at its lowest multiple in several years and was even cheaper than before a long-lasting market rally starting in 2003.
With credit costs rising, hedge funds and others borrowing heavily to do business would have a hard time refinancing and would try to pull out of highly-leveraged activities, Zuercher said. Some players could even collapse.
Defensive instruments such as gold and gold futures and capital-protected derivatives were another way to diversify and protect money against turmoil on the equity market.
"We've taken the view to come out of all pure equity plays," said Kamil Stender, Chief Executive at Helvetia Wealth.
"We are looking to build client portfolios into a more defensive battleship mode. Whenever there are stormy waters in the market, sometimes your most prudent action is to pull down the sail and find a port," he said.
Private bankers are seen weathering the crisis better than commercial and investment banks, analysts have said, because they act as financial intermediaries and do not take investment risks on their balance sheet.
Their clients usually have little exposure to the credit derivatives at the heart of the crisis, which found a first high-profile victim when investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) had to bail out two of its mortgage funds.
EFG International (EFGN.S: Quote, Profile, Research) said it had made little shifts in overall asset allocation in the wake of the crisis.
"We did however reduce exposure to equities as the Bear Stearns crisis broke," said William Ramsay, Chief Investment Officer at EFG International (EFG.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
"We have recently begun very gradually to increase exposure back towards the levels held ahead of the crisis," he said.
a) Die FED-Intervention zwang am Freitag zum short-covering durch die dementsprechend positionierten Investoren und verhinderte ein weiteres Abtauchen der US-Börsen. Eine Short-Covering-Rally bedeutet aber nicht zwingend eine Trendumkehr.
b) Die FED erkennt die von ihr vormals verneinten wirtschaftlichen Schwächen an.
c) Die Senkung des Diskontsatzes hilft den in Bedrängnis geratenen Banken halbwegs über die Runden zu kommen sprich evtl. sogar zu überleben. Eine Entlastung der eigentlichen Immo-Krise mit der damit verbundenenen wirtschaftlichen Ausweitung ist hiermit vorerst nicht verbunden.
d) Ungeachtet von Short-Term-Rallies ist die Korrektur an den Börsen weiterhin fortdauernd
THE FED CAVED IN! WILL IT WORK? August 17, 2007.
The volatility continued this week, as did the ups and downs of investor emotions. The previous week's three-day rally was totally forgotten. In it the Dow had gained back 475 points of its previous losses.
The subsequent loss of 810 points by the Dow to a new correction low on Thursday of this week, reversed emotions to the downside on a dime again.
That the new low and panic this time was spreading to Main Street was probably the biggest factor that moved the Fed to action on Friday. Consumers, already aware of the bursting of the real estate bubble, were suddenly seeing news of a plunging stock market too. For months the Fed had been stating its confidence in the economy and consumer spending. Even with recent evidence of a credit crunch developing, the Fed was content to only provide extra liquidity to the banking system, while letting other problems work themselves out over time, including a normal and overdue correction in the stock market. Its intention was obvious. Let hedge funds, brokerage firms, and sub-prime lenders, those who brought on the problems of the debt/credit bubble, suffer some pain, and learn that the Fed will not bail them out every time they do something foolish.
But an orderly and normal stock market decline to correct excesses is one thing. A stock market crash, brought on by panic and a resulting run on banks and brokerage accounts, would be something very different, which could have very long-lasting and dire consequences.
The pressure was also on the Fed from global markets. They have been leading the way down anyway. And the panic that was obvious in the U.S. on Thursday spread around the globe again on Thursday night. Japan closed down another 875 points, or a big 5.4%. Hong Kong plunged another 3.2%, Korea 3.2%, and so on.
All indications early Friday morning, prior to the stock market's open, were that the U.S. market would be sharply to the downside again Friday. At that point even the Federal Reserve seemed to panic. It rushed in with a 0.5% cut in the Discount Rate. It was like a magic potion. Market futures reversed to the upside, suddenly indicating that the Dow would be up as much as 300 points on Friday.
But wait a minute. A discount rate cut is not an interest rate cut that spreads through the economy. It is just a cut in the rate that troubled banks pay at the Fed's 'discount window', when they need to borrow short-term money and can't get it in the open market.
However, it was no doubt designed to calm the public panic by creating the impression that the Fed was doing something, without it actually doing much. The Fed would still like to see the problems in the housing industry and economy work themselves out through normal market activity, not by throwing the economy back under an easy money policy, and risk heating the bubbles up all over again.
And it worked, for a day at least. Although still down more than 1% for the week, the Dow closed up 233 points Friday, ending the run of six down days in a row.
The Fed's action forced a lot of short-sellers (betting on the market's downside) to rush to the buy side to close out short-sale positions Friday. That most of the positive action was short-covering could be seen in the fact that the stocks and sectors that have the worst prospects and therefore the most short-selling, and therefore had declined the most and were the most oversold, such as the financial and retail sales sectors, and the small stocks of the Russell 2000, had the most buying, and were up the most in Friday's activity.
However, short covering rallies by short-term traders are not trend reversals. All I expect from the Fed's action is another short-term rally off the oversold condition before the downside resumes. After the excitement calms down, investors are liable to see that with its action the Fed is now admitting that things are even worse than it realized just a few days ago. There is a growing realization that global economies, which were supposedly so strong they would help keep the U.S. economy out of recession, are not looking so strong after all. But more importantly, this move by the Fed does nothing to change the plunging housing market, the glut of unsold homes, the spread of those problems into the rest of the economy, the unreported losses already on the books of hedge funds, brokerage firms, and banks from the plunged value of mortgage-backed securities, or the reluctance of lenders to finance leveraged deals any more. The Fed's move only makes it easier for troubled banks to borrow money to survive.
Therefore, nothing has changed in my expectation that, short-term rallies notwithstanding, the stock market is in an ongoing correction, factoring in the 're-pricing of risk', and the slowing of the economy toward recession. At some point the Fed will begin actually cutting interest rates, and I still expect that will be in time to see a significant market bottom and buying opportunity, but not until the October/November time period.
Sy Harding is president of Asset Management Research Corp., DeLand, FL, publisher of The Street Smart Report Online at www.streetsmartreport.com
in der höhe des BW etas versenkt:-(
jetz wissen wir endlich für was hartz IV und die mwst. steuererhöhung gut sind:-)
vielleicht noch von interesse, ein link zur zinsentwicklung
http://www.goldseiten.de/content/diverses/artikel.php?storyid=5082
so long
navigator
Optionen
| Boardmail an "NavigatorC" |
Wertpapier: S&P 500 |
Shorting Cramer
By BILL ALPERT
THANKS TO HIS NIGHTLY CNBC SHOW Mad Money, Jim Cramer has become the chief cheerleader for the bull market, or what was the bull market until a few weeks ago. Last spring, he was giddily exhorting the Dow Jones Industrial Average toward 15,000, with no troubles in sight. Earlier this month, as the Dow tumbled in the direction of 13,000, he had an on-air meltdown, complete with screaming, sobs and predictions of financial doom. The clip quickly made the rounds on YouTube. Friday, after the Fed cut the discount rate, he said that the Dow's run to 14,500 had begun. With dramatic pronouncements like that, it's no wonder that more than 100,000 viewers tune in each weeknight for his antic mashup of sound effects, Streetwise advice and stock picks.
It's those stock picks that caught our attention. Cramer, by all accounts, had a stellar career as a hedge-fund manager. And he is held out by CNBC as the guy who can help viewers make big money. But a comprehensive and careful review of his stock picks by Barron's finds that his picks haven't beaten the market. Over the past two years, viewers holding Cramer's stocks would be up 12% while the Dow rose 22% and the S&P 500 16%, according to a record of 1,300 of the CNBC star's Buy recommendations compiled by YourMoneyWatch.com, a Website run by a retired stock analyst and loyal Cramer-watcher.
We also looked at a database of Cramer's Mad Money picks maintained by his Website, TheStreet.com. It covers only the past six months, but includes an astounding 3,458 stocks -- Buys mainly, punctuated by some Sells. These picks were flat to down in relation to the market. Count commissions and you would have been much better off in an index fund that simply tracks the market.
![[cramer]](http://online.barrons.com/public/resources/images/BA-AJ948_cramer_20070803205443.gif)
When we asked Cramer and CNBC for their own records of Mad Money's stock-picking performance, they had more excuses than a Tour de France cyclist dodging a blood test. They complained that the list from YourMoneyWatch.com contained some stocks from the program's "Lightning Round," in which Cramer gives a quick analysis and a buy or sell decision on stocks phoned in live by viewers. These, they argued, shouldn't count in our tally.
CNBC officials also said that viewers should buy Cramer's picks a week after they're aired. They said that the show is mainly educational, and not just about stock-picking. In the end, they said we should focus only on the tiny universe of stock selections -- about 12 a week -- that Cramer researches the most. And we should do it only for the issues picked this year. CNBC analyzed these stocks, and said that if held for one month, they beat the S&P by 0.8%, or 1.7% after two months. They offered no results for the year-to-date.
We analyzed those stocks ourselves, and, as in all our calculations for this story, relied on Patrick Burns, a statistical-computing expert in London who consults for hedge funds and major investment firms.
It turns out that CNBC did its analysis incorrectly, and that the stocks beat the S&P by 0.4% in one month and 1.2% over two months. CNBC measured the stocks' performance against the average performance of the S&P year-to-date, instead of against the performance of the S&P from the date of each stock pick. Also, it included more than 100 recently recommended stocks that weren't held for the full one- or two-month holding period that CNBC claimed.
More important, the stocks fell short of the S&P by a statistically significant 2.2% through last week.
![[chart]](http://online.barrons.com/public/resources/images/BA-AK091B_Crame_20070817212838.gif)
Our question is: How are viewers supposed to know that they should pay attention only to this subset of stock picks each week and ignore the thousands of others that Cramer makes on his show?
Then there's the day-after-pop phenomenon. Our analysis of Cramer's picks over the past two years, from YourMoneyWatch.com, showed that, on average, the stocks jumped 2% the day after he mentioned them. From there, they usually moved sideways or down for the following 30 trading days (see chart). This offered an opportunity to make money -- 5% to 30% a year -- by selling Cramer's selections short.
Cramer agrees that there is a shorting opportunity in the temporary effect he has on stocks -- a trade that he'd jump on if he still were at a hedge fund. "If you short the bump, you will do well," he said last week. "I've said it on the show many times."
There's no doubt that Cramer is trying diligently to make you money. His advice is generally smart, his knowledge of individual stocks amazingly detailed. But the credible evidence suggests that the telestockmeister's picks aren't beating the market. Did you really expect more from a call-in host who makes 7,000 stock picks a year?
THE 52-YEAR-OLD CRAMER HAS PROVEN HIMSELF a Renaissance man, if you don't mind applying that term to someone who goes on TV donning everything from Rasta wigs to football helmets, and, on a bad day, decapitates bobble-head dolls made in his own likeness. He struck it rich in the heyday of hedge funds, started a successful online media company and put up some of the best financial journalism in print and broadcast. Simultaneously.
He's written several books, including Confessions of a Street Addict, a wonderful memoir of his highs and lows as a trader and entrepreneur. It's peopled with the amazing Old Boy network that Cramer started building during his days as a student at Harvard: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, New Republic editor-in-chief Martin Peretz, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. And, it turns out, the screaming, chair-throwing character that Cramer plays on TV is based on the real-life person he was, as he pursued success through any obstacle, including those of his own making. In the memoir, Cramer freely confesses to his screw-ups, as he continues to do on Mad Money. That self-flagellation makes him a lovable protagonist in a modern American success story.
Table: 10 Biggest Pops
After entering Wall Street as a Goldman Sachs broker, Cramer started his hedge fund in 1987. The market crashed, but he was in cash. His firm, Cramer Berkowitz, went on to rack up 24% annualized returns over the next decade or so, a performance for which Cramer generously shares credit with his former colleague, Jeff Berkowitz, and one of the firm's traders: his then-wife, Karen.
If Mad Money offers unconvincing proof of Cramer's long-term stock-picking prowess, so does his account of his hedge-fund activities. His memoir suggests that some of Cramer Berkowitz's profit came from clever trading. The $300 million fund might execute hundreds of trades a day, some of them a bit gimmicky. Cramer describes how they'd find a stock in which selling had petered out, then build a position. Next, they'd hunt up some bullish news on the company and feed it to sellside analysts and reporters. On the subsequent rise, Cramer could profit by selling out his position. "Buzz merchandising," his book calls it. Smart and effective, but definitely not in the fuddy-duddy style of Graham & Dodd.
In December, Cramer made a video for TheStreet.com describing the ways his hedge fund had used tricky trading techniques. He said hedge funds could pass negative rumors to "bozo" reporters. When the video circulated through Wall Street and caused an uproar. Cramer said that he'd only been talking hypothetically, to blow the whistle on the hedge-fund industry's bad actors.
Shorting Cramer -- Part II
OF COURSE, CRAMER DIDN'T NEED REPORTERS to get out the story on his stocks. Early on in his hedge-fund career, he pioneered a new kind of participant journalism through his frequent magazine columns and television appearances. Cramer talked to his audience from the playing field, instead of from the distant press box where other financial journalists sat.
In outlets like SmartMoney, he often discussed stocks that his fund owned. That was a good thing, if Cramer imparted valuable information and didn't secretly trade against his recommendations. Over the years, regulators have frisked Cramer's trading records for duplicity. They've always found him clean.
In 1996, Cramer launched TheStreet.com, his own financial-media vehicle. Three years later, the mania for dot-com stocks was epidemic. At their initial offering, shares of TheStreet.com's (ticker: TSCM) were priced at $19, but opened at $60. For a short while, Cramer's stake was worth upward of $250 million. Then the dot-com bubble burst, driving the stock below a dollar by 2001.
But the Website survived the shakeout, and the stock now is around $10. TheStreet.com has become a feisty competitor to other online financial news sites -- including those of Dow Jones (ticker: DJ), which publishes this magazine and is half-owner of Smart Money. Cramer has always been the site's main draw, but TheStreet.com has employed many other talented editors and reporters.
After retiring from his hedge fund in 2000, Cramer became a full-time journalist, writing for TheStreet.com and New York magazine. But he had the most fun on TV. For years, he'd pitched broadcasters, trying to get his own show. He finally succeeded with CNBC, the financial channel owned by the NBC Universal unit of General Electric (GE); first, with Kudlow & Cramer, and then, in March 2005, with Mad Money. (Dow Jones currently has an agreement to supply content to CNBC).
CNBC's evening schedule had been Desolation Row for years. Mad Money changed that, grabbing viewers with a combination of unequivocal stock picks and slapstick -- a concept that Cramer developed with the help of his nephew and co-writer Cliff Mason, as well as some talented CNBC producers. By cable-television standards, the show has been a hit, with its Nielsen ratings rising every year to a 2007 level of 134,000 homes -- many of them fairly affluent.
![[chart]](http://online.barrons.com/public/resources/images/BA-AK088A_Crame_20070817204838.gif)
In the first part of the show, Cramer typically gives prepared recommendations on one or more stocks. Sometimes, he'll interview the CEO of a company whose stock he then endorses. All the while, he's donning sombreros, shoving toy bears in a meat grinder and sneaking in slyly erudite quips.
Then comes the show's truly distinctive feature: the Lightning Round. With no advance notice, Cramer takes calls from viewers who -- after shouting the obligatory "Booyah!" -- ask him about a stock. Within seconds, Cramer gives a curt Buy or Sell rationale. Then on to the next caller. It's dazzling -- a display of Cramer's freakish ability to remember something about thousands of stocks.
The show's popularity hasn't hurt TheStreet.com. Site traffic, ad sales and the share price have risen. Cramer, meanwhile, has been selling. Since 2005, he's sold $4.6 million worth of TheStreet.com shares through an automatic selling program.
Cramer is unapologetic about his self-promotion, but he acknowledges his bad calls, too. What he hasn't done is tell his viewers the overall score for his two-plus years of Mad Money picks. When he hits his "Buy Buy Buy" sound-effect button, can viewers expect market-walloping results?
In trying to figure that out, we came across YourMoneyWatch.com, a Website started by Michael McGown, a retired securities analyst who worked for several major brokerage firms. McGown started the site not long after the show started, and says Cramer sent a complimentary e-mail after noticing it. McGown counts only Cramer's clear and unconditional Buy recommendations, following a sensible set of rules. McGown tracks the stock until Cramer says sell. "As a person watching the show," says McGown, "I think it's a fair way to rate him."
![[chart]](http://online.barrons.com/public/resources/images/BA-AK086B_Crame_20070817204441.gif)
Over two years, YourMoneyWatch has tracked 1,300 Mad Money picks. It's this tally that shows Cramer's stocks lagging behind the Dow and the S&P 500. This year, Cramer's done better. McGown's data show his picks up 3.2%, while the S&P is up 2%; the Dow, 4.9%; and the Nasdaq, 3.7%. CNBC says the YourMoneyWatch data, as well that of Cramer's Mad Money Website, are "not authoritative."
Hoping to get Cramer's advice on how to measure his Mad Money picks, I called him a few weeks ago. He tore into me. "I've never read a single article that I thought wasn't a massive distortion of what the show's all about," he said. When I said I just wanted to see Mad Money's record, he replied: "I've never seen an analysis that I've regarded as honest, and I doubt yours is any different."
WHERE DID THOSE ANALYSES GO WRONG? They counted buys and sells from the Lightning Round segment, said Cramer, and they ignored his caveat against purchasing on the day after a broadcast -- a 24-hour rule he decreed in his Mad Money book. "I say buy it on Day Two," he explained. "I can show exact data, which says my picks are much better than the S&P."
Hearing that, I asked if I could see it. Cramer spelled out the e-mail address of someone at TheStreet.com. I spent the following days -- and weeks -- trying to get a response from that person, from Cramer, from CNBC. Meanwhile, I pored over his Mad Money book, including the two chapters that detail the importance of his Lightning Round advice. He writes that, by definition, Lightning Round recommendations are based on his previous knowledge of the stocks, not on fresh research. Yet he doesn't tell his viewers to ignore the call-in segment's Buys and Sells, concluding: "I still think you should listen to what I'm saying."
While waiting for a response from Cramer, I made a happy find: http://MadMoney.TheStreet.com. It called itself an exact record of every recommendation in the show since January of this year. A personal note from Cramer likened the site to an audited record of his performance, outside of his control. "I am doing this because my personal reputation is at stake," said the words by Cramer's picture.
There were more than 3,400 recommendations in the database. Better still, it distinguished between stock picks made in the Lightning Round and those from other portions of the show. Our analysis of these stocks found no difference between the performance of the Lightning Round picks and the rest of the Mad Money recommendations.
Jim Cramer has defined himself as a financial journalist who gives you clear Buy and Sell recommendations to make you money. If he's serious about that mission, he or CNBC should publish a database that tracks all his picks from the show's launch date. Even cheerleaders need to be accountable.
E-mail comments to editors@barrons.com
Die Kurve des Ratiocharts der iShares des o.g. Funds (LQD)/5yr-T-Bonds Price Index ($USFV) verdeutlicht, dass nunmehr eine der längsten Erfolgsgeschichten der Finanzmärkte zu Ende ist. (Chart von LQD:$UST sieht ähnlich aus). Diese große Wende halte ich für viel schlimmer als die Subprime Mortgage-Sache, da im Corporate Bond-Markt ganz andere Summen auf dem Spiel stehen.
lqd-$usfv5jd.png (verkleinert auf 72%)